x86[-64]:Remove 'volatile' from atomic_t

Any code that relies on the volatile would be a bug waiting to happen
anyway.

Don't encourage people to think that putting 'volatile' on data
structures somehow fixes problems.  We should always use proper locking
(and other serialization) techniques.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
This commit is contained in:
Linus Torvalds 2006-12-06 14:42:57 -08:00
parent 16afea0255
commit f9e9dcb38f
2 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions

View file

@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
* on us. We need to use _exactly_ the address the user gave us,
* not some alias that contains the same information.
*/
typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
#define ATOMIC_INIT(i) { (i) }

View file

@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
* on us. We need to use _exactly_ the address the user gave us,
* not some alias that contains the same information.
*/
typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
#define ATOMIC_INIT(i) { (i) }